Adam

But an actor that is paid $20 million to act on a movie is paid for each time someone vies the film. The actor is paid up front, based on an expectancy of number of viewers who will go the movies or buy the DVDs. Why shouln’t the author of the novel of the movie be paid as well? To suggest that the value of the autho’r work, a novel, is none is wrong.

If an artist can accumulate a wealth of 500 million dollars and is paid X amount for each record sold, why should the songwriters who wrote the songs not be paid for each record sold?

Why should an inventor not be paid for each unit sold of the invented device? Is it not true that if the inventor is not going to be paid something, the inventor may not even develiop the idea of the invention? Why spend money and time on development if you are not going to make money off the invention?

Why if a music concert rakes in one million dollars, nothing should go to the songwriters of the songs used in the concert. Certainly something of the money goes to the ushers and the clean up crew.

Then why should a movie producer invest in making a movie if there is no money to be made off the movie.

Sure, the compensation sytem for artist and songwriters is screweed up, with middlepersons and shareholders making the most money from the work of the the creative artists, with creators frequently getting nothing from their work. This is because the copyright laws written by the cartels are screwed up to begin with.

Until the creators are adquately paid through a new system of compensation, reasonable royalties from patents and copyrights are justified. for the creators, not the cartel middlepersons.

I agree that the life plus 70 years for music is an exageration. The patent limit of 18 years is more reasonable, for some products. For medicines and medical procedures, there should be no patents even if it were mandatory that the development of medicines and medical procedures be paid with government (the people) and non profit funds.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179090,00.html

Talking about infringmant!!!

Why should certain copyright holders be given protection for their creation for life plus? Their end effort produces a product of no true value.

Drug companies spend years developing a drug that saves or improves life, yet are protected for only twenty years.

Farmers spend millions and get paid at rates that their grandfathers were paid.

The man who repairs your car does not get paid each time the car starts after a repair.

The plumber does not get paid each time you flush your toilet after a repair.

When a Girl Scout sell you cookies, they are yours to do with as you please, and you are free to share them with whomever you please.

When you buy a car, the manufacturer does not have the right to tell you how to drive it.

If no music was played from this day on, people would not die from its loss.

There would still be air to breath.
There would still be food to eat.
There would still be clothes to wear.
There would still be water to drink.
There would still be homes to live in.
There would still be cars to drive.
There would still be planes to fly.

Life would change very little, if at all. Music, especially so called “commercial” music, is nothing more than fluff. How it has become a top priority for many governments is beyond me. The fluff salesman have done their job extremely well I guess.

Why should copyright holders be given protection for their creation for life plus ?
Their end effort produces a product of no value

Drug companies spend years developing a drug that saves or improves life, yet are protected for only twenty years
Farmers spend millions and get payed at rates that their grandfathers were payed.
The man who repairs your car does not get payed each time the car starts after a repair.
The plumber does not get payed each time you flush after a repair.
When Girl scouts sell you a cookie it,s yours.
When you buy a car, the manufacture does not have the right to tell you how to drive it.

If no music was played from this day on:
People would not die from its loss
There would be food to eat
there would be cloths to ware
there would be water to drink
there would be homes to live in
there would be cars to drive
there would be air to breath
there would be planes to fly
Life would change very little if at all, music is nothing more then fluff, how it’s become a top priority
for the government is beyond me.
The fluff salesman has done their job well i guess.

See details on my web site.

While these corrupt publishers were claiming to own the music and making money of it, my family, the real owners, could not exploit the music

In the music industry if a song has two conflicting ownership claims then one of two things happens. Either no one wants to use the music out of fear of getting a license from the wrong owners and then being sued by the right owners or a licensed is taken from the more credible claimant, the established publisher, even if the established publisher is a false claimant.

I ask, are the music publishers which I call thieves real thieves?

I think they are thieves, even if what they took initially is not physical property, just the improperly named “intellectual property”.

This is because the publishers started with illegal claims but eventually the illegal claim resulted in unlawful profits and money is physical.

So, maybe a distinction should be made. If IP is taken for the purpose of eventual profit, then is theft.

I agree that IP is not a physical thing and that just making copies of the so called property or sharing it with others without a profit
is not theft.

A final note: The stealing of msuci by music publishers is rampant. A good article on the subject can be read here:

BIGGEST COPYRIGHT SCAM: RENEWAL RIGHTS APPROPRIATION
http://chocoweb.blogspot.com/

Any opinions?

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com